Is Clinton worse than Al-Q in his eyes?
2007-03-27 03:33:41 · 21 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Teekno (below) You are ABSOLUTELY correct! He is an entertainer. Yet the hard right swear by his every word.
2007-03-27 03:46:28 · update #1
shrink {smile}
2007-03-27 03:48:11 · update #2
Blimpo Limpnoodle made his career on hammering Clinton (either one). The best thing that ever happened to Rush was Bill being elected president. That's why he can't let go, 6 years after Clinton left office.
2007-03-27 03:45:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
What? Limbaugh is a commentator, if he wants to attack Clinton he can. If Clinton had even given Al-Q a noteworthy effort maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. And as to your other question about Clinton being sidetracked by the investigation into his lying he had 8 yrs to accomplish the job, it wasn't until his last yrs that Monica entered in and whose fault was it that the spotlight didn't stay on Al-Q?! Clinton for not saying no!
2007-03-27 10:45:30 · answer #2 · answered by Brianne 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Because he was high on oxycontin. I wonder if El Drugbo wishes Clinton was back because that's when he made his millions. Since he has nothing to complain about, what's to pay his salary?
2007-03-27 11:17:57 · answer #3 · answered by nicewknd 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
LOL, makes about as much sense as Republicans blaming Clinton for 9/11, which, I suspect is your point here. Well done.
2007-03-27 10:47:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
It was Bill Clinton's job to attack Al-Q, not Limbaugh's. Now we beg the question, why didn't Bill Clinton attack Al-Q instead of attacking Limbaugh? Because Bill is a sissy!
2007-03-27 10:49:55 · answer #5 · answered by dwforce 3 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Well, maybe it's just the opposite side of the coin from Loser Ohlbermann and the time he devotes to attacking President Bush on non-issues. In his eyes, we'd be better off losing the war than supporting the President so think of it as a yin-Yang thing. You guys can't ALWAYS have it your (liberal) way.
2007-03-27 10:43:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
It's more a question of easier target, in my opinion. I would imagine terrorism gets its share of coverage from Rush. But honestly, Chi, I haven't seen or heard Rush in over 10 years. You know more about him than I do.
Now I disagree with the person who said your material is not productive. It is highly entertaining, or most of us wouldn't be here. And at least you use your mind to come up with stuff. And you challenge me to come up with something. Nothing unproductive about that.
2007-03-27 10:40:46 · answer #7 · answered by Shrink 5 · 5⤊ 4⤋
Yep...ol Rush loved Bill Clinton more than anybody else. Without Clinton, who would know Rush outside of Cape Girardeau???
Hilary Clinton becoming president is probably one of his secret wishes....
2007-03-27 10:42:42 · answer #8 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Because you don't get a radio audience by denouncing terrorists, you get a radio audience by talking politics.
Limbaugh isn't a visionary, he isn't an idiot. He's an entertainer, and his shtick is right-wing commentary. Nothing more, nothing less.
2007-03-27 10:38:42 · answer #9 · answered by Teekno 7 · 10⤊ 2⤋
No, Rush sees the Clinton's a grist for his mill. He entertains people with their various schemes.
Rush realizes who the real enemy is and continues to point it out, even when the liberals see no threat.
2007-03-27 10:39:54 · answer #10 · answered by Sgt 524 5 · 7⤊ 6⤋